DeRosa v. Parker
967 N.E.2d 767
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Parker appeals a permanent injunction prohibiting storing her husband’s RV on her Canfield property.
- Deed restrictions from Chapel Lane plat No. 1 prohibit house trailers on the premises.
- RV is 34 feet long, 12 feet high, self-propelled, with full utilities and living quarters.
- Deed restrictions were recorded in 1965 and form part of Parker’s title by chain of title.
- Trial court adopted magistrate’s conclusion that the RV is a house trailer and thus forbidden on the property.
- Appellees asserted the restriction is enforceable despite potential issues of revocation, waiver, laches, estoppel, or lack of irreparable harm; Parker argues to the contrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RV qualifies as a house trailer under the restriction. | Parker argues the RV is motorized and not a house trailer. | Appellees contend the 1965 definition of house trailer includes motorized RVs. | RV falls within the common/1965 definition of house trailer; restriction enforced. |
| Whether Parker’s deed actually contains the No. 9 restriction. | Parker contends her deed lacks explicit reference to the restriction. | Appellees argue constructive notice via chain of title suffices. | Constructive notice applies; restriction binding despite absence of volume/page reference. |
| Whether the restrictions were revoked, waived, or abandoned. | Appellant asserts majority-deed noncompliance constitutes revocation/waiver. | There is a mechanism to revoke by 51% owner vote; no evidence such vote occurred. | No revocation/waiver; restrictions remain enforceable. |
| Whether laches, estoppel, or unclean hands bars enforcement. | Equitable defenses should bar enforcement given delays or conduct. | No misrepresentation, prejudice, or inequitable conduct shown; defenses fail. | No applicable laches, estoppel, or unclean hands. |
| Whether irreparable harm is required to grant injunctive relief for deed restrictions. | Irreparable harm must be shown to sustain injunction. | Injunctive relief can be granted for enforceable deed restrictions without separate irreparable-harm proof. | Deed restriction enforceable with injunctive relief even absent separate irreparable-harm proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- LuMac Dev. Corp. v. Buck Point Ltd. Partnership, 61 Ohio App.3d 558 (Ohio App. Dist. 1988) (contract interpretation; timing of restrictions; de novo review on appeal)
- Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 (Ohio 1998) (contract interpretation; read covenants as a whole; enforceability of restrictions)
- Dean v. Nugent Canal Yacht Club, Inc., 66 Ohio App.3d 471 (Ohio App. Dist. 1990) (when language is clear, enforce; otherwise ambiguous favors least-restrictive interpretation)
- Houk v. Ross, 34 Ohio St.2d 77 (Ohio 1973) (ambiguous deed restrictions construed to favor free use of land)
- Arnoff v. Chase, 101 Ohio St. 331 (Ohio 1920) (common and ordinary meaning; surrounding circumstances in interpretation)
- Pepper Pike v. Landskroner, 53 Ohio App.2d 63 (Ohio App. Dist. 1977) (statutory definitions of house trailer; historical context)